That was an excellent one.

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

The acting in this movie is really good.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Woody Allen has always been enamored with Europe and Europe has always repaid him well in return. Nothing extraordinary with Allen's European appeal since he's always been influenced by Bergman and Fellini, both emotional and intellectual school of film-making approaching the things of life, with Allen's humor to spice it all. In result; there has always been a love story between Woody and Europe. "To Rome With Love" only states what we've known already and on the scale of the many masterpieces that paid heartfelt tribute to Allen's European heritage, it's a minor offering. Besides, "To Rome With Love" was released six years ago which on the scale of Hollywood history and the major upheavals following the Weinstein's scandal, are an eternity, the end of 2017 shook up Hollywood like no other year did and the tectonic resonance of the MeToo and TimeUp movement finally reached Woody Allen. Recently, many stars who starred in his movies expressed their regrets and validated their apologies with donations to the concerned organizations, Chalamet did it right after starring in the next Allen film. Colin Firth regretted working with Allen, so did Greta Gerwig and Ellen Page who both starred in "To Rome With Love". I was just complaining that Allen might have lost his touch after the dreadful "Café Society" but I'm afraid that it would be now the least of his concerns. The director who feared the Weinstein scandal would turn into a witch hunt seemed to have indirectly prophesized the very crumble of his legacy, at a time where media outrage is more vocal than court judgments. It seems that stars believed the best option is to believe the allegations against Allen, whether they're right or wrong is beside the point, career-wise, it's the right move. So, I'm not sure how we can exactly judge "To Rome With Love" with today's scope, the film seems like a relatively feeble attempt to resurrect the charm of his more glorious decades while not totally devoid of hilarious moments. I wish I could love the film more, but it seems so futile by now, like an exercise in Allenisms with actors trying to play the game while not totally in it... or am I influenced by their late statements? Anyway, there is a moment where a retired opera director played by Allen discovers a man who can only sings perfectly under the shower, I don't know if it's intended to be a tribute to the classic Looney Tunes' cartoon "One Froggy Eveneing" but only in an Allen movie, you could have an opera scene where a man sings Pagliachi with an incongruous shower set on stage. It was so nonsensical and yet predictable that it could almost be strung with the most surrealist Allen's moments and enough to earn this film two extra points of rating. If only the other parts were as good. One of them involve Jesse Eisenberg falling in love with a young student who seems to know exactly what to say to arouse him sexually, she's played by Ellen Page. Alec Baldwin is in every scene, like a not so imaginary friend, for the record, he's the only one who didn't backstab Allen yet. A second story involves a family misunderstanding between a man who must present his fiancée to his uptight family but must save face by pretending it's the luscious prostitute played by Penelope Cruz, meanwhile his fiancée lives another adventure involving a sexy burglar and has been actor. And the fourth is about an average clerk played by Roberto Benigni who suddenly becomes a celebrity without any reason. And it's very telling when the part that obviously tries to "make a statement" about celebrity ends up being the least successful one. The film is never as funny as when it goes to the zaniest direction and never as boring as when it tries to say something. There are many questions raised in these short films, but only the lighthearted moments allow the film to elevate itself above its heavy contrivances. Rome is such a big presence that it doesn't take much to make a film about it, but Allen overplays the postcard homage for no reason at all, granted it was part of his European tour, but Allen have proven to be a heir to Fellini with his "Radio Days" and "Stardust Memories". Indeed, there's always been something Italian without the need to go all "Mamma Mia" without it... no pun intended of course.

First I must say, I LOVE Woody Allen! I think he is the most prolific comedic genius of our day. And with those high expectations, I was mostly disappointed with 'To Rome With Love'.Don't get me wrong, it did have some of that typical dry Woody humor...especially when he was referring to the undertaker's house! But the operatic shower scene was shown to such excess that it became more annoying than funny. As well, I thought the film could have used more of that verbal Allen wit and much less of the sight gags, such as the woman dropping her phone into the storm drain, or the thief that emerges in the hotel room when the older actor Luca is about to seduce the naive Milly.But, I did love the Leopoldo storyline ~ a man who lives an especially mundane life only to wake one day to find that he's become a national celebrity! I wish the entire movie was filled with this unique humor, but unfortunately it was not.For the bits and lines that were classic Woody, and overlooking the many parts that were simply forgettable, am giving 'To Rome With Love' 5* out of 10...and already looking forward to his next movie!

With this movie Woody Allen made one of his dreams come true of make a film in Rome, emulating to some of his idols as Fellini or Rosselini, having as a final result a very Italian movie .When the Italian producers proposed Allen to make a movie that takes place in Rome, the American director using some notes and with the help of his friend Martin Solibakke developed a really messy script that tells 4 different stories (2 in Italian and 2 in English) with the only connection between them that all of them takes place in Rome.As a result the film is a bit messy having some stories that doesn't really fit with the rest of the movie , for example the story starred by Roberto Benigni is really out of place with the rest, but although of that, the film in terms of quality is pretty good and never falls in boredom , keeping you interested in all the stories until the very end and having that magical charming that Allen always is able to put in his films ...

Woody Allen portrays a reality of the very rich, where resources, money and time are endless even for young people (who have for instance plenty of wine bottles at disposal). Life is an adventure without serious problems and people only need to think what to do and think. On top of that, adultery is perhaps seen too much as an innocent game. I gave the stars to the story which is at least well paced, a bit cliché too but also "cinema" which means dreaming and caricature but above all for the beautiful images of the city of Rome which for me is really (as a tourist) the most beautiful city in the world. I enjoyed the movie, but, on marriage, fidelity and values, I was left with the feeling of listening to the wrong teacher.